From what I heard on the radio he was being followed about by the Trident team and was seen visiting a known gun supplier. I would assume the LIKELYHOOD of him being armed was high. He was apparently en route in a taxi with that gun. Taxi is given a hard stop, that does NOT mean they are going to shoot you, it means that every precaution will be used to stop the vehicle and its occupants.
From here, it gets hazy imo. BUT if he had of got of the car CORRECTLY, with hands raised in the air and nothing in them he would be alive. NOT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT.

Morale -
If a geezer or a bird stop a car your in and points guns at you, do as your f'ing told or die, simple_________________Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ

paddymickStraight Flush

Joined: 08 Aug 2007Posts: 3455Location: Leicester

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:19 pm

The fact still stands (according to the jury and all eyewitnesses, except the officer that fired the shots)- he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. The gun was not found until later. Therefore the officer that shot him made a mistake. That is irrefutable. Whether he 'behaved correctly' when he exited the taxi, we will never know. The only independent witness to the actual shooting claims he had his hands raised, holding a mobile phone.

Marcus6Royal Flush

Joined: 06 Jun 2012Posts: 5917Location: london

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:32 pm

paddymick wrote:The fact still stands (according to the jury and all eyewitnesses, except the officer that fired the shots)- he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. The gun was not found until later. Therefore the officer that shot him made a mistake. That is irrefutable. Whether he 'behaved correctly' when he exited the taxi, we will never know. The only independent witness to the actual shooting claims he had his hands raised, holding a mobile phone.

he should not been holding anything, the officer may think he is holding! a gun? like i said before you dont have much time to think! when you are in a spot like this. (the only they did to ask the officer! did he shoot to kill?)

paddymickStraight Flush

Joined: 08 Aug 2007Posts: 3455Location: Leicester

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:43 pm

[quote="Marcus6"]

paddymick wrote:he should not been holding anything, the officer may think he is holding! a gun? like i said before you dont have much time to think! when you are in a spot like this. (the only they did to ask the officer! did he shoot to kill?)

The officer testified that it was a gun, in a sock, with the barrel poking out of a hole, pointed at him. That's very specific. He apparently had enough time to make that observation.

Completely disagree with you.
You have obviously had no training or experience into what happens during a "Hard stop". But, I tell you 1 thing, if you are told to get out of that motor with hands raised AND empty, you will if you are not stupid.
What matters is whether the copper had reason to believe his, or any other persons safety was in immediate threat. He obviously believed it was, rightly or wrongly. By holding something in his hand in a sock and not putting it down when told to do so when guns are pointing at you is stupid in my book, almost suicidal, its not a game and Duggan knew that with his lifestyle.

Also if you think things are black and white (no pun intended) in any situation of this kind then you have your head in the sand._________________Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ

paddymickStraight Flush

Joined: 08 Aug 2007Posts: 3455Location: Leicester

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:53 pm

neilcaterham wrote:Completely disagree with you.
You have obviously had no training or experience into what happens during a "Hard stop". But, I tell you 1 thing, if you are told to get out of that motor with hands raised AND empty, you will if you are not stupid.
What matters is whether the copper had reason to believe his, or any other persons safety was in immediate threat. He obviously believed it was, rightly or wrongly. By holding something in his hand in a sock and not putting it down when told to do so when guns are pointing at you is stupid in my book, almost suicidal, its not a game and Duggan knew that with his lifestyle.

Also if you think things are black and white (no pun intended) in any situation of this kind then you have your head in the sand.

Who said things were black and white?
We do not know what actually happened. I'll accept the officer could of thought that there was a danger. On the evidence presented he was wrong. So maybe he made a mistake. Maybe Duggan made the mistake of having something in his hand (maybe he was scared). What stinks is the IPCC cover up (which they have admitted to) and all the other contradictions which point to a police cover up.

RigsbyForum Challenge Champion

Joined: 21 Jun 2011Posts: 1909

Posted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:00 pm

I would like to know why the police close ranks lie and cover up in these situations, the officer in my opinon must have had a guilty conscience to lie from the outset_________________"o8 is Medicine" Knassen

Alex BStraight Flush

Joined: 25 Apr 2005Posts: 2856Location: London

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:34 am

What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.

RigsbyForum Challenge Champion

Joined: 21 Jun 2011Posts: 1909

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:46 am

Alex B wrote:What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.

It would be interesting to know the figures of both, innocents shot buy suspects and innocents shot by police_________________"o8 is Medicine" Knassen

paddymickStraight Flush

Joined: 08 Aug 2007Posts: 3455Location: Leicester

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:06 pm

Alex B wrote:

What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

Hope i'm reading this right. Do you mean a 'false positive' to mean a suspect shot by police when it was not necessary? So a 'positive' is a suspect shot by police when it is necessary? And you are asking about the ratio of false positives to positives?

Alex B wrote:I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.

Me too. What I am not comfortable with is when a 'false positive' happens and it gets covered up, rather than admitted to and learned from. I also think if there were no cover ups, the public would accept a higher rate of false positives.

SebFull House

Joined: 29 Dec 2011Posts: 912

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:32 pm

paddymick wrote:

neilcaterham wrote:My thoughts are that if he don't want to get shot, don't drive about with guns.

The police only suspected he had a gun. The gun was not found until after he was shot. Are you saying police should shoot anyone they suspect of having a gun?

How many people go around with guns? It seems like they *knew* he had a gun and was therefore mental. Kill him, don't kill him, not sure it makes much difference.

paddymickStraight Flush

Joined: 08 Aug 2007Posts: 3455Location: Leicester

Posted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:06 pm

Seb wrote:How many people go around with guns?

I don't know.

Seb wrote: It seems like they *knew* he had a gun and was therefore mental.

So assuming they knew he had a gun - big assumption - still does not mean he should be shot for that reason alone. He should be given a chance to surrender. Maybe he messed up that chance. Maybe the police messed up. Maybe both.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that if you carry a gun your life is forfeit? Please note I am not implying that that is a totally unreasonable policy. It's just very hard to be absolutely certain that someone is carrying a gun when they have not used it or showed it, and for a life to be forfeit I would argue that you need to be very sure.

berbaOne Pair

Joined: 11 Mar 2008Posts: 14Location: london

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:07 am

If you play with guns you might get shot, seems reasonable enough to me._________________�Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.�
BenFranklin

Alex BStraight Flush

Joined: 25 Apr 2005Posts: 2856Location: London

Posted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:32 am

paddymick wrote:

Alex B wrote:

What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

Hope i'm reading this right. Do you mean a 'false positive' to mean a suspect shot by police when it was not necessary? So a 'positive' is a suspect shot by police when it is necessary? And you are asking about the ratio of false positives to positives?

Alex B wrote:I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.

Me too. What I am not comfortable with is when a 'false positive' happens and it gets covered up, rather than admitted to and learned from. I also think if there were no cover ups, the public would accept a higher rate of false positives.

Agreed.

Regarding "false positive", I meant we are assessing whether suspect is guilty of threatening to shoot someone and needs to be stopped.

The interesting number is the ratio of T1:T2, which depends on how many "situations" invoice stopping innocent people in general - my guess is some but not many (and greatly skewed towards suspect behaving), therefore a lower evidence requirement for rejecting H0.

As an example, if you stop 100 innocents for every 1 dangerous you need to be 99% sure to be right ~50% of the time. But if its 1 innocent to 100 dangerous, zero evidence and shooting every time would be correct >99%. Given the situations these people get in to, I think its closer to the latter.

You could apply the logic to normal stop and search as well, which is being criticised as misused and ineffective. Maybe the police should, and present their case for them like this, and talk to the public (in Tottenham specifically) and figure out what rate is acceptable.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Information Licensing Terms: All information contained on this site is proprietary and owned by The Hendon Mob. Please read our Terms of Use and the conditions that apply before using any of the information on an occasional basis. For regular use of any of the information, please contact us regarding our licensing terms.

GPI® is a registered trademark in the United States under Registration No.4635015.